Do We Need Rain?

[Ophiolite]

Do you mind if I do some research on what happens when the Moon blows up?

1. The Earth gets peppered with a rain of rocks that it hasn't seen since the heavy bombardment period 3.9 billion years ago. These produce global devastation from impact (crater's five, ten miles across); tsunamis (a mile or more high); superheating of the Earth's atmosphere (all terrestrial life is incinerated); evaporation of a substantial volume of the Earth's oceans (perhaps all of them); increased vulcanicity and seismicity; blocking of all sunlight by a combination of dust and cloud, so that any surviving photosynthetic organisms perish.

2. Once things settle down in, say, 10,000,000 years the chance of life making it back to land is diminished because tidal range is a small fraction of what it was. It took 2 billion years for life to go from some small enclaves around black smokers to produce science fiction writers. This time we only have 1.5 billion years before the sun heats up enough to generate a runaway greenhouse effect.

Apart from these two small drawbacks, I am also curious how blowing up the moon is meant to produce the desired effects on the Earth.

I applaud your efforts to aid RhenMyster: however, my personal take on this is that the S in SF should be as rigorous as we can make it. Liberties may have to be taken, but they should be held to a minimum. [Now if you want to do something interesting with the moon then hit it slightly off centre with a series of Oort cloud comets. These will (a) provide it with an atmosphere and hydrosphere, and (b) spin it up to a 24 hour day. Doesn't seem to effect the rain though.]

[MattC]

Well, actually, I want to set the story in the future (Not flying car future and pill-sized meals). But I need the world in a terrible condition, where only the strongest countries are surviving because of greedy, dictators that only care for their country's success. So, in this thoery, it's okay if third world countries and other not-so-powerful countries die off.

 

You probably don't need to make up anything far-fetched. As it is, the world is overpopulated and filled with strife, valuable resources are being over- and mis-used, and the environment (and thus the ability of the environment to sustain life) is being broadly degraded.

 

You can argue, in your story, that poor land use has lead to the near-permanent destruction of most of the worlds arable land - pick a country you want out of the picture, and say that over-irrigation using river water, lake water, or partially desalted ocean water has lead to a build up of salts. The development of new, salt resistent plants encouraged the people in that country to ignore the warnings of concerned environmentalists and continue to irrigate without proper drainage (which can be impossible, without pumping, in some areas). At some point the fertile lands of that country became simply too salty to grow anything, and the people starve or go to war with a neighbor.

 

Perhaps you can use the spread of AIDs as a vehicle for fictional mass die-offs.

 

If you want something a little fartherfetched..

Or a massive earthquake in antarctica could knock both ice sheets off in a matter of days, causing an increase in sea levels large enough to kill off huge swaths of people living along the coasts and displace (and concentrate) many more. The increased surface area of the now larger oceans of the world mean that the albedo of the Earth is greater - the Earth would warm up, humidity, precipitation, and retention of solar energy would all increase. Before the process becomes irreversible, it's plausable that ocean currents would shift, leading to less heat transfer between the warm equatorial regions and the cooler polar regions - this would lead to significant cooling in polar regions, and the increased vapor in the atmosphere (atmospheric mixing would occur just as much as normally, even though oceanic mixing between the equator and the poles would stop) would lead to clouds and snowfall, both of which would increase the Albedo of the Earth and cause a decrease in temperature, back to levels below pre-earthquake levels. In the frigid, wet northern regions of the world, agriculture would be difficult if not impossible without advanced technology, and in the equatorial regions rain and fertile land would be available, but the increased concentration of people and the higher temperatures could lead to massive outbreaks of disease that might wipe out entire populations in some cases, and leave others crippled.

[Guest Tecnogram888]

You have no problem with me blowing up the moon to knock the earth straight on its axis?

 

 

Since we're trying to postpone precipitation or end it on earth, Blowing up the moon seems pretty pointless because its just going to end seasons, but not air circulation cells. so precipitation wouldnt be effected at all...ur just gonna end up with the problems ophiolite listed

 

I dont think you could reach an equilibrium without getting to a temperature high enough to begin the runaway greenhouse effect. also, with the enourmous cloud cover that happens with your equilibrium plan would keep the sun blocked all day long, meaning even low light plants would die. reducing plant diversity=lower efficiency/square meter and a bigger suseptability to extinction, since they will all be sharing similar characteristics.

 

moss=solid=pulled 9.8m/s down to earth. so unless updrafts are shootin up at 9.8m/s nonstop, the moss is gonna fall. Also, moss will be a condensation point for the clouds, converting the vapor into liquid and causing rain. defeating the purpose of having water in clouds up there. so screw moss.

 

restricted cloud movements is not going to happen. convections cells are going to form in the atmosphere because of forces beyond our control. sure, straightening earth on its axis would make poles colder and equators hotter, but as long as the earth is rotating and absorbing heat and it has a large amount of water, which it does since 70.78% of its surface is covered by it, heat transfers from equator to poles will be extremely efficient. i dont think u see how amazing water is as a stability agent for Earth. climates will be changed, no doubt, but it will stay similar enough to be said that blowing up the moon to straighten earth is extremely pointless and has negative consequences.

 

you cannot get enough energy to support the 6 billion and increasing population of people on earth from wind alone. hellacious storms worse than what we've seen wont occur because earth's weather basically not going to be effected by the straightening of it on its axis.

 

Here's another idea; have the religious fundamentalist believe that the change in the environment is God preparing the earth for the Great Conflagration by which he will destroy the earth; introduce any scientific 'facts' you want in arguments with the RFs.

Sorry' date=' I'm not the writer; just an idea.[/quote']

 

what is god's reasons to destroy the earth? he's not going to randomly do that without us causing him to. but then again, only the people of the correct religion who piss of their god is gonna enact that...and how r u gonna get every religion's followers to anger their god so that they could end the existance of man kind.

 

ps, u say that ur an idea person, but since this is a scientific debate forum, make sure u google to check if ur ideas work scientificly before posting them here or else they'll be contradicted by people on this forum.

[reverse]

Nine year old Tom looked at the small wire star sitting on the hot desert sand .

 

He pressed the red switch , letting power from the even smaller solar cell flow into it.

 

11 year old Katie prodded Toms back with her foot.

 

“you realize", she huffed , "that if this work’s, it will all be because of my star design".

 

The star started to hum and waver.

 

The children searched hopefully across the clear blue sky.

 

“Look!”, cried Tom as the clouds on the horizon started drifting slowly toward them.

 

“You do know what this means” laughed Tom.

 

“Yes” smiled Katy…” that you will be a real pain for the next ten years….and…

now all the deserts will get a fair share of all that water in the sky.

[RhenMyster]

This is a good idea, but I really would just like it to be caused by perhaps an over-bearing, evil dictator who only cares about "ruling the world" so to speak. But nothing like an earth quake in Anarctica. And nothing to do with God's wrath; religion is in the book, but it's a different kind of religion ith different punishments. I just need this: The dictator is screwing up the world so badly that rain is scarce, so new irrigation systems are made and water is produced like oil, where prices are growing higher and higher. The absense of rain is important, but I don't want it to be like "The Day After Tomorrow" or anything. It's more about the characters and their influence, whether good or bad, on the world.

[reverse]

sounds pretty cool!

 

do me a favour.

 

drown him at the end.

 

live by the aqua, die by the aqua.

[j_p]

Sigh.

 

If the moon were to be removed, wouldn't the sudden absence cause severe earth-quakes, even without bombardment of the earth with large chunks of the moon?

 

The problem with the plants: low light plants are seldom low water plants. There is a challenge for the gardeners among us.

 

Re: rigorous science in science fiction

I prefer the science to be as vague as possible; if the science is detailed, some detail is going to be wrong, either from ignorance or expediance. Like giant ants.

 

I don't think that liberties should be taken; I just think that not all the details need be supplied.

 

And I am not the idea person; I am a reader, sharing what would work for me in a work of fiction. Tell me something is "true", and I will accept it for the sake of the story [except giant ants]; bore with pages of detailed explanations, and I will take it as a challenge to tear those details apart.

 

About religion:

After the Great Flood, God promised Noah "neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth". That's all, I wasn't suggesting a religious sub-text.

[Dak]

Re: rigorous science in science fiction

I prefer the science to be as vague as possible; if the science is detailed' date=' some detail is going to be wrong, either from ignorance or expediance. Like giant ants.[/quote']thats a very good point.

 

to me, starwars is infinately more believable than star treck, simply because in star treck they go

 

'hmm... the earthquake caused a geo-rotational feedback which nullified the kinetic properties of the planets core, thus negating the planets eletric field -- this, in turn, caused a quantumn gyrotic influx, causing an alighnment of tachyons, which, combined, caused the intermolecular forses of the local molecules to weaken and the planet litteraly disintegrated; sped up, of course, by the local time-space-feed-loopback-phenomena"

 

whereas in starwars they simply go

 

"hmm... alderan was shot with a ****ing great big lazer, and now it isnt there anymore"

 

which is infinately more believable.

[Ophiolite]

Sigh.

If the moon were to be removed' date=' wouldn't the sudden absence cause severe earth-quakes, even without bombardment of the earth with large chunks of the moon?[/quote']Deep sigh.

No. If anything the frequency of earthquakes is likely to decline because tidal stresses are reduced. (There is some evidence to suggest correlation between lunar-solar alignment and earthquake frequency.)

Let's suppose for sake of argument that large earthquakes are generated. How do you propose that is going to alter the Earth's orbit and axial tilt? Even the December Indian Ocean earthquake only managed to alter the length of the day by an amount that cannot be detected.

[j_p]

Deep sigh.

No. If anything the frequency of earthquakes is likely to decline because tidal stresses are reduced. (There is some evidence to suggest correlation between lunar-solar alignment and earthquake frequency.)

Let's suppose for sake of argument that large earthquakes are generated. How do you propose that is going to alter the Earth's orbit and axial tilt? Even the December Indian Ocean earthquake only managed to alter the length of the day by an amount that cannot be detected.

 

Heavy sigh.

No' date=' you misunderstand, I was referring to the [b']change, the removal[/b] of the moon, even without blowing it up and raining debris on the earth [imagine the moon is stolen by highly advanced beings from an alternate universe]. That the earth would be more stable without the gravitational interaction with the moon makes sense [at least to a chemist], but wouldn't the sudden change in the system cause a serious upheaval?

 

I do NOT want earth-quakes; they would increase the particulates in the atomosphere, and, unless it leads to growing moss on clouds, I don't want that.

[Ophiolite]

Heavy sigh.

 

No' date=' you misunderstand, I was referring to the [b']change, the removal[/b] of the moon, That the earth would be more stable without the gravitational interaction with the moon makes sense [at least to a chemist], but wouldn't the sudden change in the system cause a serious upheaval?

 

Sigh whose profundity passeth all understanding.

 

No, I didn't misunderstand: that is what I thought you meant. The sudden change would likely generate some effect. But I utterly fail to see how it will change the orbit and the axial tilt in the way your scenario required. At most it will trigger earthquakes that were on the point of happening anyway. On a human scale those just might constitute a 'serious upheaval', but on a planetary scale they would fit in the normal range of seismic activity.

 

Note that in the long term the range of axial tilt of the Earth would actually increase. At present this is a couple of degrees. Without the moon's stabilising influence axial tilt could vary from close to zero up to forty five degrees over millions of years.

[j_p]

Sigh whose profundity passeth all understanding.

 

No' date=' I didn't misunderstand: that is what I thought you meant. The sudden change would likely generate some effect. But I utterly fail to see how it will change the orbit and the axial tilt in the way your scenario required. ....[/color']

 

Slow closure of eyes, defeated drop of shoulders, breathless determination to not sigh.

 

I was proposing that the force of the distant explosion of the moon would push the earth straight on its axis and straighten out its orbit. Now, I am a scientist, but a chemist. As far as the interaction of planetary bodies goes, I am on par with a person who studies medival Basque poetry, and even I know that is just wrong; it wouldn't happen!

 

Are you really going to force me to say it?

[Dak]

Sigh.

 

Deep sigh.

 

Heavy sigh.

 

Sigh whose profundity passeth all understanding.

 

Slow closure of eyes, defeated drop of shoulders, breathless determination to not sigh.

 

you two are aware that it sounds like your making love, right?

[Ophiolite]

For most penetrating observation of the month on sfn I nominate Dak.

 

Are you really going to force me to say it?

Well, yes I was, since we don't want casual readers of the thread to go away with an unscientific idea.

 

And in relation to Dak's observation, I do have to ask, 'Did the Earth move for you?':-)

[RhenMyster]

With all of that argument that may or may not have to do with my original topic, you are all in favor of me saying in the book: "It rained hardly ever, once or twice a year at the most. Many didn't understand why, but most agreed it had to do with the lack of care and consideration from the government's lethargic disposition." And the rest is up to the assumptions of the readers?

[j_p]

you two are[/i'] aware that it sounds like your making love, right?

 

Well, it definitely sounds as if we are married ...

[j_p]

For most penetrating observation of the month on sfn I nominate Dak.

 

Well' date=' yes I was, since we don't want casual readers of the thread to go away with an unscientific idea.

 

And in relation to Dak's observation, I do have to ask, 'Did the Earth move for you?':-)[/quote']

 

Straight up on its axis, baby.

 

You're right; I was being pretty flip about the whole thing.

 

With all of that argument that may or may not have to do with my original topic, you are all in favor of me saying in the book: "It rained hardly ever, once or twice a year at the most. Many didn't understand why, but most agreed it had to do with the lack of care and consideration from the government's lethargic disposition." And the rest is up to the assumptions of the readers?

 

I might toss in a "... through an unforeseen confluence of unpredicted environmental changes brought about by sudden and drastic changes in energy policy by the EU ...", or two [be original; blame some government other than the US], but, yeah, if you can't explain it, don't.

[Newtonian]

Some say due to the composite of the moon that it is an alien mothership.Funnily enough before 1066 they was no mention of the moon directly in literature.

Anyone doubting this can look it up.Without going off on a tangent the geology of the moon is quite disconcerting.Analysis reveals it is less dense towards the centre,its metalic elements are more quantative at its surface.And its weight ratio tends to point towards it being hollow.

All in all it is a really unique object.....and not a broken off piece of earth.

[Dak]

The nihongi (720 AD) and the kojiki both referense the deity tsukiyomi no mikoto (very rough translation: the magnificent owner of the night-moon)¹ .

 

I dont know the exact wording of the reference to tsukiyomi no mikoto, but considering that his sister ameterasu (sun goddess) is the most inportant of the japanese gods, i would assume that tsuikyomi no mikoto's moon is actually directly referensed in the texts.

 

plus a lot of our ancient time systems match the moons cycles. i week = 7 days = 1/4 of a moon cycle. 1 month = 1 lunar cycle (roughly) etc.

[j_p]

I don't have a copy of a Greek text handy, but I am pretty certain Homer made a few references to the moon. And that predates the previous references by a millenium or so.

 

In fact, I would bet cash money we could find a reference to the moon in Hamurabi's code.

[Spyman]

Analysis reveals it is less dense towards the centre,its metalic elements are more quantative at its surface.And its weight ratio tends to point towards it being hollow.

Who's analysis is that ? Links ?

 

Data gathered by Lunar Prospector confirmed that the moon has a core and enabled scientists to estimate its size. The core has a radius of only about 250 miles (400 kilometers).

 

The lunar core has less than 1 percent of the mass of the moon. Scientists suspect that the core consists mostly of iron' date=' and it may also contain large amounts of sulfur and other elements. [/quote']http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

 

Do You really belive the Moon is a giant hollow alien mothership that arrived after 1066 ?

[Ophiolite]

Some say due to the composite of the moon that it is an alien mothership.Funnily enough before 1066 they was no mention of the moon directly in literature.

Anyone doubting this can look it up.Without going off on a tangent the geology of the moon is quite disconcerting.Analysis reveals it is less dense towards the centre' date='its metalic elements are more quantative at its surface.And its weight ratio tends to point towards it being hollow.

All in all it is a really unique object.....and not a broken off piece of earth.[/quote']This is off topic: if I ever get around to it I shall refute each item in turn in a new thread. (Apart form the 1066 reference since others have already handled that).

 

Back on topic. Rhenmyster, I feel strongly that you can't write science fiction without providing a plausible explanation for the absence of rain. You can, however, write science fantasy.

 

Like a cheetah stalking its prey the Great Parch, as it came to be known, crept up on humanity. A sunny day, a cloudless day, was welcomed. Children played in the yard, teenagers eyed each other at he beach, householders fixed the shingles.

A second day was equally welcome. A fortieth day was not. The reservoirs ran dry, then the creeks, then the rivers. By the time the cheetah pounced it was too late to do other than prepare for the end.

Read anything by Ray Bradbury to see how to do it properly.

[Dak]

I dunno, i still think that completely ignoring the science is a completely legitimate sci-fi trick. i mean, when you tel a story about someone driving a car, you dont explain how the car works -- just that it does. maybe mentioning that it has an enjine, and possibly indicating that its an internal combustion enjine and hinting that it runs off of petrol. if it breaks, maybe a specific component is mentionned (oh bugger, the alternater is shot), but iv never read a book which tried to document the phisics involved in a car driving.

 

its up to the author, but every single scientifical explenation doesnt nessesaraly need to be addressed.

[Ophiolite]

We don't need to address the physics of the internal combustion engine because these are understood and accepted.

We do need to address any plot device that is central to the story and is not an accepted part of life. This is not restricted to justifying scientific concepts, but applies to any aspect of the plot.

In the Count of Monte Cristo, when Edmond Dantes is imprisoned in the Chateau d'If, it is the consequence of a series of actions by several individuals. If any one of them failed to act in the way that they did he would not be imprisoned, yet there actions are each odd, even abnormal. Dumas meticulously explores why each has acted as he has. That is good writing. Using a Deux ex machinaapproach is not.

Clearly this is only an opinion, but I suggest if you browse through some of the books on novel and short-story writing at your library or bookstore you will find this point is made quite strongly.

[Dak]

if the story picks up after the event has happened, and the reader is given the knowledge of the phenomena that would be common to the people in the story, then it could be ignoored -- or atleast explained vaguely. especially if there is no opening narration, and the situation is explained through the dialogue of the charectors.

 

if it actually happened, then how many people would actually understand why? compared to how many people would just be pissed off or worried about surviving?

 

not saying that he nessesaraly should; but its an option that is open to him.